Let’s say everything works out as well as we could hope. AQ remains exiled. The insurgency shatters and most of the fighters reconcile. What is left is a desperately poor country, with a massive military (relative to its population and wealth), and an entire economic elite whose way of life is built around diverting international aid dollars.

Run with that scenario for 10 years or 15. Maybe it turns into South Korea, but more likely you get a dysfunctional state, prone to military coups, and constantly being threatened by competition among elites for a bigger piece of the pie. It remains a country that for a variety of reasons will continue to tempt external actors to play out geopolitical games — the Iranians looking to manage their Balochi problems, Indians looking tweak the Pakistanis, Pakistanis trying to create “strategic depth.” In the meantime, various and sundry jihadis will continue to focus on the country due to its connection to the “glory days” of the 1980s. The best case is simply not likely to transition into a sustainable state. And of course, the United States will want to remain involved until the place is stable, and yet our actions while perhaps managing short-term challenges probably undermines the possibility of a long-term solution. The Afghan war is the epitome of a worldview focused on the in-box — crisis management over strategic planning.

Do Agonist readers think there’s any chance of Afghanistan becoming a sustainable state? Is the U.S. expediting or retarding that process?

Share this:

Peacemakers take action to lead the charge to end the war. Join forces with the over 100,000 people who make a difference.

LEGALAnyone is allowed to post content on this site, but Brave New Foundation 501(c)(3) is not responsible for that content. We will, however, remove anything unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, racist, or that contains other material that would violate the law. By posting you agree to this.